Kong vs Pirates

What movie has the better Visual Effects?

  • King Kong (2005)

  • Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead man's chest (2006)


Results are only viewable after voting.
Isnt Veffects in the 3rd Pirates better than the 2nd Pirates?
 
i didnt notice leaves in hes fur and dirt.

i need to watch it again. this is interesting

On this picture you can clearly see all the dirt and stuff on he's fur

kingkong200532g.jpg
 
dear lord that is incredible.

p.s. did they use global illumination in this shot?
 
Last edited:
people voting for Pirates that are also complaining about the T-Rex's in Kong need to take a 2nd look at the Cracken.
 
the cracken? what was bad? i think the compositing was good and the look was also pretty realistic. it looked wet and translucent.
 
For those who wonder why did I post this poll: I did because if Kong was month late and instead December 05 it was January 06, than the two movies where going to be nominated for the Visual effects Oscar, and I was wondering who would you guys think will deserves it more.

As far for the Kraken, I thing it was brilliant effect, but the rest of Davy’s crew, wasn’t that good. As far of Kong, I rally think that the only average (not bad) effect where with the huge dinosaurs in the canyon. I rally think the Rexes where brilliant. People must stop comparing them with the one in Jurassic Park. Two different movies-two different dinosaurs. The one in JP is up until today a brilliant effect, but the ones in Kong where more like battle Rexes.

Besides in Kong there where more that Kong himself and dinos! There where bugs, fishes, landscapes and A LOT of art. If you don’t like the effects in Kong I must not like the ones in LOTR trilogy? They where worst than Kong’s (3 years older).

PS: Please don’t get you’re opinion about one of those movies get yo you’re judgment! We are not talking favorite moves, only effects. If you hate POTC, do not vote for Kong just because. The same goes around. Even the biggest hater must have honest opinion about effects.
 
the cracken? what was bad? i think the compositing was good and the look was also pretty realistic. it looked wet and translucent.
there were certain shots where it looked fake and out of place but for the most part it looked great. the cracken looked about as "bad" as the T-Rexes looked in King Kong, which wasn't bad at all. if there's anything in King Kong that looked bad it was the stampede scene. everything else in King Kong was ace.
 
there were certain shots where it looked fake and out of place but for the most part it looked great. the cracken looked about as "bad" as the T-Rexes looked in King Kong, which wasn't bad at all. if there's anything in King Kong that looked bad it was the stampede scene. everything else in King Kong was ace.
i understand.

i must admit that i watched POTC 2 more then 1 year ago.
 
I have found some pretty awesome stills of Kong from the film which really show off how great the CGI is. You can see each hair, bits of dirty and the lighting is just fantastic!

I have put the pics on Spoiler Tags because they are pretty large.

2005kingkong74.jpg

kingkongr.jpg

kingkong04g.jpg

large20king20kong20blur.jpg

kingkongkeyart2005.jpg
 
Another great feature of King Kong would be the storm scenes around Skull Island. I love the part where they navigate through the rocks, which are actually huge statues. And there's the part were the natives pole vault to the ship. Wonderful.
 
Dead Man's Chest hands down. When I saw Davy Jones for the first time I was completely fooled, I had no idea it wasall CGI.
 
Yeah, but what about everything that wasn't Davy Jones?

Bingo.

We can all agree without a doubt that Davy Jones is fantastic CGI but King Kong had much better used CGI on a whole.

Just look at the pics I posted in a spoiler tag. They show how fantastic the details and CGI was for Kong.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,771
Messages
22,022,319
Members
45,815
Latest member
Swagola1
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"